OCR Text |
Show 196 Al'l'ENDJX. No. VI. \VE invite attention to the following able and unanswerable review of the "Report in Councils" on the late riot in this eity. It is from the Cincinnati flai!;IJ Ga.zette, the leading \Vhig paper of the Great \Vest; and from the pen of its learned and inlluential editor, CHARLI~s liA)tittOND, Esq. It is not the production of an abolitionist, or of one personally interested in the Pennsylvania Hall, but of a disinterested cit izen of another state, a profound ami intelligent lawyer, examining the Heport on its merits, and apart from the exciting influences of this loca!Jty,-the impartial and deliberate judgment of an honest and high-minded man, whose integrity was never impeached. (F1·om theCineinnnti Duily G:1zettc.) The Committee appointed in May last, "to investigate and report to the Councils the circumstances attending and connected with the destruction of Pennsylvania Hall," made thtir report, of tlate July 21.1. Nothing has been elicited to vary the characte r of that outrage as already prese nted to the public. Its daring enormity, and the humiliating imbecility of the police are left in full exposme. The willingness of the citizens to countenance the mob is distinctly asserted, ami put forth as an apology l'or the police. And even an apology is attempted for the citizens themselves. Taking the re· port as a whole, it is a document of mischievous tendency. It is to be regretted that the inquiry was commenced. Indeed, it seemed at its origin to be a forlorn effort-a hopeless attempt to do someth ing in a desperate case, that might efface a portion of the degradation attached to it. ll is lamentable that we should find, in this report, a resort to the vicious, shallow, nay, wtcKED ExcusF. FOR TlrF. nrou, that has become so common in the country. The provocation is industriously and prominently set out. Anl.l the Commiuee so present this provocation as to more than half impress it upon the rcader .. hat it deserves from him a serious consideration. Here is their own lang~: " llowever deeply the Committee may deprecate and censure the existence of that feeling [excitement]; however impossible it may be for them iu any manner to justi fy or excuse it, they owe it to the cause of truth to declare that this excitement, (heretofore unparalleled in our city,) was occasioned by the determination of the owners of that building, and of their friends, to persevere in openly promulgating in it doctrines repulsive to the moral s~nse of a large majority of our community, and to persist in this course aga1nst the advice of friend!!!, heedless of the dangers which they were encountering, or reckless of its consequences to the peace and order of the city." The proposition assumed in this paragraph is alike derelict of just.morals and sound policy. It is a violation of nature's great charter of free actiOn and free discussion, within the pale of municipal law, for one man to foment himself into excittment against his fellow man, upon account of doctrines maintained, or opinions advanced, which are forbidden by no law. The en· gendering of such excitement is a hot-bed growth of most noxious chara~ter. Whence can one individual derive a right to sit in judgment upon his ne1gh· bar's conversation, to condemn it, and work himself into a passion in respect to it, if that conversation affects no private interest and violates no l~w 1 That a man becomes excited, because another man promulgates doctnnes disagreeable to him, proves only that the. excited part~ is s~turate of pre· sumptuous self-sufficiency. If under the mfiucnce of tlus excttement he be~ comes furious anl.l lawless in his conduct, and arrogantly tramples upon the lTA:'!I'lONI>1S REVUnv OF TilE POLICE COi\Jl\llTTEE1S REPORT, 197 undo~bted rights of those against whom he is exasperated, do just morals perm1t that his excitement, in itself highly reprehensible, shall be alleged as an apology for its consequent outrage 1 It is but to state the propos ition to secure for it utter condemnation. Yet this J:lhiladelphia committee seriously urge this excitement as an apology for the persons who indulged it to the shame and disgrace of the city . That this is a departure from just morals, would seem too clear for controversy. 'l'he impolicy of suggesting an u1_nvarranted excitement as an apology for a ~agitioue wrong, one would suppose would be palpable to every reflecting mmd. It spreads out a mantle to be thrown over every excess , in which vulgar malice and daring profligacy may be excited to engage. Every '~here, it is most impolitic to countenance such an impression. In a large City, bearing directly upon a case of mob violence, and coming from a nu· me~ous portion of a public body charged with preserving the peace ~and securmg the safety of the city, it is peculiarly and especially impolitic. . There is another matter worthy of' remark, in the par<~ g raph quoted. Is It true that the doctrines advocated in the Hall were "1·epulsive to the moral sense of a large maJority of the community" of Philadelphia city 1 The Com111iltee so assert, and the quietness with which the citizens at large witnessed the workings of the mob, g ives countenance to the assertion. The question whether the doctrines promulgated and advocated, were violative of a just moral sense, may be waived for a moment. It is enough that the moral sense of the citizens of Philal.lelphia was justly and deeply outraged, by the congregation of strangers among them, to promulgate doctrines repulsive to that moral sense. And such being the fact, who can controvert the conclusion that an impulsive and speedy movement, in arrest of such inculcations, may be tacitly acquiesced in. lt is an occasion for legal blindness and domestic silence, though not for official apologies. If such was the case in Philadelphia; if the Committee felt strong and clear assurance that the suppressed discussions were, in their very nature, morally repulsive to well regulated minds, there cou ld certainly be no propriety in the vehement outpourings of reprobation in which the Committee indulge against the mea· sures taken to stay their further progress. The naturarargument nms thus. Whatever conduct is repulsive and abhorrent to the moral sense, necessarily nrouses indignant sensations in the mint!, and with this just indignation arises a strong natural impulse to put down the mischief. To effect this, some excess may be winked at.- With this train of reasoning the Com· mittee work out an Al'Ol.OOY FOR THE MOB. But then immediately they shy oJl", as if startled at the foundation on which they have placed thcmselves.This proceeding of the Committee shows that they felt the awkwardness of their position, in essaying to build up error upon error, grounding the whole upon the utterly untenable assumption, that the moral sense of the city was offended, justly, necessarily outraged, at the discussions in the demolished Hall. There can be no worse offensive presumption, no arrogance more intolerable than that which assumes, in this country, to set up, for itself, a moral sense that may revolt at opinions and discussions, acceptable to large masses of the entire community. Men may be otrended at doctrines which impugn party, sectarian, and peculiar tenets, but the offence is against no universal moral preception. The slaveholder does not pretend that his moJ·al sense is offended against the abolitionists. II is excitement is roused because his private interest is assailed. Nor do the men of the South hold it fit to feel furious at the familiarities of association between the sexes of different colors. Individuals make their colored mistresses, openly, members of their domestic establishments, and seek among white person~:\ matrimonial |